<p>I grew up in Virginia. It was almost impossible to spit in any direction without hitting a Civil War battlefield. There was a Confederate graveyard in my back yard (literally) at one of our rental houses. I grew up on segregation, a Virginia history book that glorified Confederate heroes, and a courthouse with a Confederate soldier statue standing guard. That must have made the African-Americans on trial there feel very cozy.</p>
<p>Like BusinessGuy, I long resisted the idea that the War Between the States, the War of Northern Aggression, or the Recent Unpleasantness was caused by slavery. That's natural. In Japan, these days, many children are taught that Japan's role in WWII was forced on them by the colonialist powers, including an "advance" (not "attack," mind you) into China. </p>
<p>Growing up, I was a Civil War history fanatic, using my hard-earned money to buy subscriptions to two Civil War history magazines and pretty much devouring every book on the subject at the small, local library. I hated Bruce Catton because he seemed so pro-Union to me. I loved Douglas Southall Freeman because of his reverence for the Confederate armies and the "lost cause." To this day, I can still give you the brigade, brigade commanders, and individual regiments engaged in particular attacks at particular battles. It's pretty useless knowledge, but it's stuck in there, somewhere.</p>
<p>It wasn't until I got to college and started taking some courses on the period, reading original sources from a very extensive library, that I began to realize that I had been either wrong or, at best, had incomplete knowledge on a number of issues. One of them was the role of slavery.</p>
<p>I believe I represent the vast majority of historians when I say that, without slavery, the Civil War doesn't happen. It's that simple. Slavery drove the Missouri compromise, the Kansas Wars, the Underground Railroad, the thundering denunciations in the Northern press and the thundering denunciations in return from the Southern press, friction of the 3/5s rule, and a host of other, related issues, including the way Southerners were treated in the North and Northerners in the South, that led to the break.</p>
<p>BusinessGuy is right about some things. The US, in those days, was much more like the modern EU than like the US we know, today. The US Constitution's Bill of Rights did not extend basic rights to all citizens, for the most part. Instead, it just limited the power of the federal government. It was only in the late 19th century that the Supreme Court decided that Amendment 14 meant that all Americans were to be protected by the Bill of Rights, even from their state governments.</p>
<p>I think it's fair to say that the Civil War actually made the US a real nation instead of a loose cooperative of sovereign states. In that reality, it is very difficult to call RE Lee a "traitor," even if he did swear an oath to the US. </p>
<p>I also believe BusinessGuy would be correct if he said (and I don't think he has) that most Northerners did not actually enlist for war because of slavery, nor would they have enlisted had they thought this was the reason for the war. The letters from Union soldiers are very clear about this. The best estimates I've seen put the number of Northern abolitionists at only about 10% of the population.</p>
<p>Having said all that, I think we should let at least four Confederate States speak for themselves on the issue, and let those reading decide if slavery wasn't the cause of their secession:</p>
<p>TEXAS</p>
<p>
[quote]
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. </p>
<p>That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. </p>
<p>By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MISSISSIPPI</p>
<p>
[quote]
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>GEORGIA</p>
<p>
[quote]
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>SOUTH CAROLINA</p>
<p>
[quote]
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.</p>
<p>The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.</p>
<p>In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
[/quote]
</p>